Get task type parameters

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and meets it: it discloses the exact return keys (all_parameters, required, description, solution), that nested objects are expanded, and that the flat required list under-reports variant-specific requirements. It also warns that the flat list is a starting point, not the whole contract.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then uses a scannable bullet list for return values and a clearly marked warning about limitations. Every sentence adds needed operational context, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given one undocumented parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what to pass, what will be returned, how to interpret the required list, and where to go for further confirmation. Nothing essential for calling this tool correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema only defines task_type as a string with no description, so schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates strongly by giving concrete examples of valid values ('RecaptchaV2Task', 'TurnstileTask', 'DataDome', 'altcha', 'HUNT') and by explaining that both top-level type names and CustomTask class names are accepted.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Return the parameters for a CapMonster task type, from the live OpenAPI spec.' It also clarifies the input (top-level type name or CustomTask class name) and distinguishes itself from related tools like get_supported_tasks and get_docs.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit sequencing: 'Use after get_supported_tasks() to look up what fields a task needs.' It also tells the agent when to switch to get_docs, i.e., when the description field mentions variants/options/modes or when the agent is unsure about per-variant fields.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.